Topic: Top court rejects ACLU domestic spying lawsuit | |
---|---|
well if you say so actually they should act on illegal law without anyone bringing it before them So they should just pick and choose which laws they strike down? That makes a lot of sense... then there wouldn't be any limit on their power (or potential abuse of it). I like it just fine as it is now, thanks. they are the check and measure of the legislative branch of the govt but oh well it maybe that the law has been repealed (i think) that it was treated as a non issue Or that nobody was actually harmed for there to be a case for the Supreme Court to review... If there had been any indictments as a result of the "wiretaps" the Supreme Court would have ruled. There weren't, so they couldn't. At least that's how I saw it. |
|
|
|
well if you say so actually they should act on illegal law without anyone bringing it before them So they should just pick and choose which laws they strike down? That makes a lot of sense... then there wouldn't be any limit on their power (or potential abuse of it). I like it just fine as it is now, thanks. they are the check and measure of the legislative branch of the govt but oh well it maybe that the law has been repealed (i think) that it was treated as a non issue Or that nobody was actually harmed for there to be a case for the Supreme Court to review... If there had been any indictments as a result of the "wiretaps" the Supreme Court would have ruled. There weren't, so they couldn't. At least that's how I saw it. as long as the records are sealed you do not know if anyone has been harmed but just keep falling in line behind the mama goose |
|
|
|
well if you say so actually they should act on illegal law without anyone bringing it before them So they should just pick and choose which laws they strike down? That makes a lot of sense... then there wouldn't be any limit on their power (or potential abuse of it). I like it just fine as it is now, thanks. they are the check and measure of the legislative branch of the govt but oh well it maybe that the law has been repealed (i think) that it was treated as a non issue Or that nobody was actually harmed for there to be a case for the Supreme Court to review... If there had been any indictments as a result of the "wiretaps" the Supreme Court would have ruled. There weren't, so they couldn't. At least that's how I saw it. as long as the records are sealed you do not know if anyone has been harmed but just keep falling in line behind the mama goose Yeah, except I just said there weren't any indictments. That would be the harm... |
|
|
|
well if you say so actually they should act on illegal law without anyone bringing it before them So they should just pick and choose which laws they strike down? That makes a lot of sense... then there wouldn't be any limit on their power (or potential abuse of it). I like it just fine as it is now, thanks. they are the check and measure of the legislative branch of the govt but oh well it maybe that the law has been repealed (i think) that it was treated as a non issue Or that nobody was actually harmed for there to be a case for the Supreme Court to review... If there had been any indictments as a result of the "wiretaps" the Supreme Court would have ruled. There weren't, so they couldn't. At least that's how I saw it. as long as the records are sealed you do not know if anyone has been harmed but just keep falling in line behind the mama goose Yeah, except I just said there weren't any indictments. That would be the harm... you just keep telling ourself that |
|
|
|
Edited by
soxfan94
on
Wed 02/20/08 06:31 AM
|
|
you just keep telling ourself that adj4u - The severe frustration caused by your continual insistence that you are right is becoming quite painful. You are making a pragmatic argument while discussing a legal question. No law is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is. Only they have the legal power to so declare a law invalid. (I know that this usurps a lot of power from you, but even if you were an American citizen you still would not have the power to proclaim laws unconstitutional). As a body, the Supreme Court is both restricted and given discretion in which issues it may decide. It may choose not to decide on certain issues before it for basically any reason it chooses. However, it may NOT reach out and grab an issue which was not present before it. Like wiley mentioned, this would be a gross perversion of the balance of powers which form the fundamental basis of our government. Along those same lines, the Court is bound by stare decisis to reject any case before it which is not properly presented. In order to be properly presented, a case must be brought by a plaintiff who has a significant interest in the outcome of the case because they have been harmed by the unconstitutionality of the law. Example: I could NEVER EVER challenge a law which discriminated against women. Despite the fact that it may seem blatantly unconstitutional, it does not harm me, and thus I am not a proper plaintiff. Even if everyone in the world agreed that it was an unconstitutional law, the Court would still need to uphold a dismissal of the case and deny certiorari if it was brought by me. I understand that it's frustrating to see a borderline unconstitutional law go unchallenged in the Supreme Court for what seems like a technicality, but those precedents are set there for numerous very good reasons, and they represent the procedure which the Supreme Court must abide by. You are championing the Constitution fervently, but seem to fail to recognize that allowing the Supreme Court to overstep its bounds is, in itself, unconstitutional! |
|
|
|
that may be so sox man
but i must say it is a good thing franklin washington hamilton hale jefferson and the others did not have your caual attitude towards injustices thrown upon the people and no i am not comparing myself to them |
|
|
|
In order to be properly presented, a case must be brought by a plaintiff who has a significant interest in the outcome of the case because they have been harmed by the unconstitutionality of the law.
the case was about their rights have been infringed, not that some law was unconstitutional and I think adj4u is interested in the rights of the people more than the outcome of the case. He has a reason to feel he is right because it is a basic and fundamental right of the people to expect privacy. I agree with him except that there has to be an avenue to circumvent some laws during a time of war or some other significant event. People like adj4u are needed to keep them honest and he does me a favor by protecting my rights even though I am working against to give some of them up..... |
|
|
|
that may be so sox man but i must say it is a good thing franklin washington hamilton hale jefferson and the others did not have your caual attitude towards injustices thrown upon the people and no i am not comparing myself to them Ok this is it, then I am retiring from this thread for good because it gives me high blood pressure: What I have been saying is not my opinion. It's not. Not my opinion. My opinion, it is not. It does not constitute my opinion. What I said...not my opinion. Clear? It's the law. Like I said, write an angry letter to the Supreme Court, not me. I didn't make it that way, and it's not my opinion. |
|
|
|
Does the fact that the ACLU was founded and headed by a devout communist mean anything to you? Once again the liberal socialists are calling the conservatives fascists. The fascists have always been and always will be liberals. Do your homework and check the history books.
|
|
|
|
Does the fact that the ACLU was founded and headed by a devout communist mean anything to you? Once again the liberal socialists are calling the conservatives fascists. The fascists have always been and always will be liberals. Do your homework and check the history books. what does the party of the aclu have to do with the unconstitutionality of the law ??????? |
|
|
|
Does the fact that the ACLU was founded and headed by a devout communist mean anything to you? Once again the liberal socialists are calling the conservatives fascists. The fascists have always been and always will be liberals. Do your homework and check the history books. Thank you, thank you, thank you Lindyy |
|
|
|
Does the fact that the ACLU was founded and headed by a devout communist mean anything to you? Once again the liberal socialists are calling the conservatives fascists. The fascists have always been and always will be liberals. Do your homework and check the history books. Not all socialists are communists, Baldwin was publicaly anti soviet union. http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html This is regardless anyhow, the ACLU is a very important orginisation for protecting equal/ civil rights, they helped me fight religious discrimination personaly. When you become the minority and have your rights imposed upon, I somehow think you'll probably seek the help of the ACLU;^] |
|
|
|
The ACLU is the National Enquirer in the legal world...they make ambulance chasing lawyers look like respectable people..
|
|
|
|
The ACLU is the National Enquirer in the legal world...they make ambulance chasing lawyers look like respectable people.. And your experiance with the ACLU is?;^] |
|
|
|
Edited by
northrn_yanke
on
Thu 02/21/08 04:00 PM
|
|
And your experiance with the ACLU is?;^]
they are on the news all the time...do I need to be one of their poster clients to know what they are all about? and here's an example.... ACLU Applauds Repeal of Anti-Immigrant Ordinance in Riverside, N.J. The ACLU praised the Riverside, N.J., township council for voting to repeal an unlawful ordinance that would have punished landlords and employers for renting to or employing individuals it classified as "illegal" immigrants. > ACLU Applauds Repeal of Anti-Immigrant Ordinance in Riverside, N.J. |
|
|
|
And your experiance with the ACLU is?;^]
they are on the news all the time...do I need to be one of their poster clients to know what they are all about? Well I have been a client, they have done tons of good in the states here. But I guess when they investigated the KKK for burning occupied churches in missisipi they must've been wrong there too, even though those three civil rights workers layed down their lives. You only look stupid when you get caught talking about something you know nothing about;^] |
|
|
|
You only look stupid when you get caught talking about something you know nothing about;^]
well I think that it was the FBI who investigated the church burnings.... |
|
|
|
You only look stupid when you get caught talking about something you know nothing about;^]
well I think that it was the FBI who investigated the church burnings.... Maybe you just don't understand because you're observing from a distance. See Mississipi Burning;^] |
|
|
|
And your experiance with the ACLU is?;^]
they are on the news all the time...do I need to be one of their poster clients to know what they are all about? Well I have been a client, they have done tons of good in the states here. But I guess when they investigated the KKK for burning occupied churches in missisipi they must've been wrong there too, even though those three civil rights workers layed down their lives. You only look stupid when you get caught talking about something you know nothing about;^] |
|
|
|
Maybe you just don't understand because you're observing from a distance.
that's not it...I'm stupid don't you remember... |
|
|